Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 06-8015
D. W yoming
JOSEPH ED W AR D C RO M W ELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Joseph Edward Cromwell pleaded guilty in the United States D istrict Court
for the District of W yoming to two counts of possession of methamphetamine
with intent to distribute. See 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). On M arch 19,
2002, he was sentenced to two concurrent terms of 200 months imprisonment.
The United States moved for a downward departure under United States
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to honor the parties request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and
collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and
judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and
conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
show that the district courts resolution of the constitutional claim was either
debatable or wrong. Id.
M r. Cromwell challenges the district courts denial of his 2255 motion
solely on the ground that his sentence violated Booker. He admits that under
Tenth Circuit precedent Booker does not apply retroactively to criminal cases
already final when it was decided, but argues that this court is wrong. W e are not
persuaded. No reasonable jurist could conclude that M r. Cromwells 2255
motion should have been decided differently. See United States v. Bellamy, 411
F.3d 1182, 1186-87 (10th Cir. 2005) (W e . . . join all other circuits that have
examined the question and conclude Booker does not apply retroactively to initial
habeas petitions.)
W e DENY a COA and DISM ISS the appeal.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Harris L Hartz
Circuit Judge
-3-